The religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation, or, An answer to a book entituled, Mercy and truth, or, Charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary to which is added in this third impression The apostolical institution of episcopacy : as also IX sermons ... / by William Chillingworth ...

The AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED, His Preface to the READER.

GIve me leave (good Reader) to inform thee, by way of Preface, of three Points. The first concerns D. Potters Answer, to Charity Mistaken. The second relates to this Reply of mine. And the third contains some Premonitions, or Prescriptions, in case D. Potter, or any in his behalf, think fit to Rejoyn.

2. For the first point, concerning D. Potters Answer, I say, in general, reserving particulars to their proper places, that in his whole Book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, which was, Whether both Catho∣liques and Protestants can be saved in their several professions? And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars, wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in general, that there is but one true Church; that all Christians are obliged to hearken to her; that she must be ever visible, and infallible; that to separate ones self from her communion is Schism; and to dissent from her Doctrin is Heresie, though it be in points never so few, or never so small in their own nature; and therefore that the distinction of points Fundamental, and not Fundamental, is wholly vain, as it is applyed by Pro∣testants. These (I say) and some other general grounds, Charity Mistaken handles, and out of them doth clearly evince, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides: and therefore since it is apparent, that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance: and consequently, as we hold, that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation; so must they also believe that we cannot be saved, if they judge their own Religion to be true, and ours to be false. And whosoever disguizeth this truth, is an enemy to souls, which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation, in different Faiths, and Religions. And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly, according to that which appears to have been his design, which was not to descend to particular disputes, and D. Potter affectedly does, namely, Whether or no the Roman-Church be the only true Church of Christ; and much lesse, Whether general Councels be infallible; whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church; whether he be above a General Council; whether all points of Faith be contained in Scripture; whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church, as into his last formal Object, and Motive; and, least of all, did he discourse of Images, Communion under both kinds, publique service in an unknown Tongue, Seven Sacraments, Sacrifice of the Masse, Indulgences, and Index Expurgatorius: All which, and di∣vers other articles, D. Potter (as I said) draws by violence into his Book: and he might have brought in Pope Joan, or Antichrist, or the Jews who are permitted to live in Rome, which are common Themes for men that want better matter, as D. Potter was fain to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies, that so he might dazle the eyes, and distract the minde of the Reader, and hinder him from perceiving, that in his whole answer he uttereth nothing to the purpose and point in question: which, if he had followed closely, I dare well say, he might have dispatched his whole Book, in two or three sheets of paper. But the truth is, he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be sa∣ved: and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church be∣fore Luther, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her, and consequently, that they cannot hope for Salvation; if they deny it to us: he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language, and to fill up his Book with Points which make nothing to the purpose. Wherein he is lesse excusable, because he must grant, that those very particulars to which he digresseth, are not Fundamental errors, though it should be granted that they be Errors, which indeed are Catholique Verities. For since they b•• not Fundamental, not destructive of Salvation, what imports it, Whether we hold them or no, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved?

3. In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question, to wit, in his di∣stinction of points Fundamental, and not Fundamental: because some may think, that a difference in points which are not Fundamental, breaks not the Unity of Faith, and hinders not the hope of Salvati∣on in persons so disagreeing. And yet, in this very distinction, he never speaks to the purpose indeed, but only sayes, That there are some points so Fundamental, as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely; but never tels us, whether there be any other points of Faith, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed, or testified by Almighty God; which was the only thing in question. For if it be damnable, as certainly it is, to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by Almighty God, though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence, or moment; and since of two disagreeing in matters of Faith, one must necessarily deny some such truth; it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths, or Religions, one only can be saved, though their difference consist of divers, or but even one point, which is not in his own na∣ture Fundamental, as I declare at large in divers places of my first Part. So that it is clear, D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction, never comes to the point in question; to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrow it, and plainly contradict his whole designe, as I shew in the third Chap∣ter of my first Part.

4. And as for D. Potter's manner of handling those very points, which are utterly beside the purpose; it consists only in bringing vulgar mean Objections, which have been answered a thousand times, yea, and some of them are clearly answered even in Charity Mistaken; but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers, and much less doth he apply himself to confute them. He alledgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud, as I would not have believed, if I had not found it by clear and frequent experience. In his second Edition, he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions, amongst many others no less notorious, having, as it seems, been warned by some friends, that they could not stand with his credit: but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all, nor de∣clares that he was mistaken in the First, and so his Reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him, though withall he read the Second. For preventing of which inconvenience, I have thought it necessary to take notice of them, and to discover them in my Reply.

5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say, that D. Potter might well have spared his pains if he had ingenuously acknowledged, where the whole substance, yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his Book may be found in far briefer manner, namely, in a Sermon of D. Usher's preached be∣fore our late Soveraign Lord King James, the 20. of June 1624. at Wansted, containing A Declarati∣on of the Universality of the Church of Christ, and the Unity of Faith professed therein; which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholique Divine, under the name of Paulus Veridi∣cus, within the compass of about four sheets of Paper, D. Potter's Answer to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared. And this may suffice for a general Censure of his Answer to Chari∣ty Mistaken.

6. For the second, touching my Reply: if you wonder at the Bulk thereof, compared either with Charity Mistaken, or D. Potter's Answer, I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say, and then I hope you will see, that I was cast upon a meer necessity of not being so short, as otherwise might peradventure be desired. Charity Mistaken is short, I grant, and yet very full, and large, for as much as concerned his design, which you see was not to treat of particular Controversies in Religion, no not so much as to debate whether or no the Romane Church be the only true Church of Christ, which indeed would have required a larger Volume, as I have understood there was one then coming forth, if it had not been prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken, which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that time. But Charity Mistaken proves only in General out of some Universal Principles, well backed and made good by choice and solid Authorities, that of two disagreeing in points of Faith, one only without repentance can be saved; which aim exacted no great bulk. And as for D. Potter's Answer, even that also is not so short, as it may seem. For if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the Text, the Book would appear to be of some bulk: though indeed it might have been very short, if he had kept himself to the point treated by Charity Mistaken, as shall be declared anon. But contrarily, because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter, is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined, and in regard that there is not a more pernitious Heresie, or rather indeed ground of Atheism, than a per∣swasion that men of different Religions may be saved, if otherwise, forsooth, they lead a kind of civil and moral life: I conceive, that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D. Potter, but that it was necessary to handle the Question it self somewhat at large, and not only to prove in ge∣ral, that both Protestants and Catholiques cannot be saved; but to shew also, that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church; and yet withall, not to omit to answer all the particulars of D. Potter's Book which may any way import. To this end I thought it fit to divide my Reply into two Parts; in the former whereof, the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potter's Answer, though yet so, as even that in this first Part, I omit not to answer such passages of his, as I find directly in my way, and naturally be∣long to the points whereof I treat: and in the second Part I answer D. Potter's Treatise, Section by Secti∣on, as they lie in order. I here therefore intreat the Reader, that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important Question, he do not content himself with that which I say to D. Potter in my second Part, but that he take the First before him, either all, ot at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most. For which purpose, I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part, together with their Titles and Arguments, to be prefixed be∣fore my Reply.

7. This was then a chief reason why I could not be very short. But yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect. For there are so several kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold, as that if a man convince but one kind of them, the rest will conceive them∣selves to be as truly unsatisfied, and even unspoken to, as if nothing had been said therein at all. As for example: Some hold a necessity of a perpetual visible Church, and some hold no such necessity. Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours; and others, that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwayes visible: for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so: And the like may be truly said of very many other particulars. Besides it is D. Potter's fashion, (wherein as he is very far from being the first, so I pray God he prove the last of that humour) to touch in a word many trivial old Objections, which, if they be not all answered, it will and must serve the turn, to make the ignorant sort of men believe and brag, as if some main unan∣swerable matter had been subtilly and purposely omitted; and every body knows that some Objecti∣on may be very plausibly made in few words, the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper than one. And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compass of so few lines, and with so great confusedness and fraud, that it requires much time, pains, and paper to open them so distinctly, as that they may appear to every man's eye. It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken, and the importance of what is omitted, and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted, all

words themselves that are omitted, all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply. And as for the quality thereof, I desire thee (good Reader) to believe, that whereas nothing is more necessa∣ry than Books for answering of Books: yet I was so ill furnished in this kind, that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter, meetly upon necessity; though I did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances, that I must probably have been sure enough so finde them plainly misalledged, and much wronged: and for the few which are examined, there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it. For the times are not for all men alike; and D. Potter hath much advantage therein. But Truth is truth, and will ever be able to justifie it self in the midst of all diffi∣culties which may occurr. And as for me, when I alledge Protestant Writers as well Domestical as For∣rain, I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my self obliged for divers of them to the Author of the Book entituled, The Protestant's Apology for the Romane Church, who calls himself John Breerly, whose care, exactness, and fidelity is so extraordinary great, as that he doth not only cite the Books, but the Editions also, with the place and time of their Printing, yea and often the very page, and line, where the words are to be had. And if you happen not to finde what he cites, yet suspend your judgement, till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his Book; though it be also true, that after all dili∣gence and faithfulness on his behalf, it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the Print: in which Prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons, which must needs occurr to any prudent man.

8. And forasmuch as concerns the manner of my Reply, I have procured to do it without all bitterness or gall of invective words, both for as much as may import either Protestants in general, or D. Potter's person in particular; unless, for example, he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency, a sleight, or a corruption, by those very names, without which I do not know how to express the things; and yet therein I can truly affirm that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way, to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could, without betraying the Cause. And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen (as I hope none hath) it was beside, and against my intention, though I must needs profess, that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him, as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss, than moderate. But since in the very title of my Reply I profess to maintain Charity, I conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it fall to be in mildness, than if it had appeared in too much zeal. And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature, I can, and will ease him of that labour, by acknowledging in my self as many and more personal defects than he can heap upon me. Truth only, and sincerity, I so much value and profess, as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me.

9. In the third and last place, I have thought fit to express my self thus. If D. Potter, or any other resolve to answer my Reply; I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own repu∣tation, the saving of my unnecessary pains, and especially to the greater advantage of truth. I wish then that he would be careful to consider, wherein the point of every difficulty consists, and not imper∣tinently to shoot at Rovers, and affectedly mistake one thing for another. As for example, to what pur∣pose (for as much as conecrns the question between D. Potter and Charity Mistaken,) doth he so often and seriously labour to prove, that Faith is not resolved into the Authority of the Church, as into the formal Object and Motive thereof? Or that all Points of Faith are contained in Scripture? Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith? Or that the Church of Rome, as it signifies that particu∣lar Church or Diocess, is not all one with the Universal Church? Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may err? With many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places. It will also be neces∣sary for him not to put certain Doctrines upon us, from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself.

10. I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfs, but to set them down faithfully and entirely, for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question: because the want sometime of one word, may chance to make void, or lessen the force of the whole Argument. And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat, because I find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader, not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken. Neither will this course be a cause that his Rejoynder grow too large, but it will be occasion of brevity to him, and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits, and himself of demonstrating, that what he omitted was not material. Nay, I will assure him, that if he keep himself to the point of every dif∣fficulty, and not weary the Reader, and overcharge his margent with unnecessary quotations of Au∣thors in Greek and Latine, and sometime also in Italian and French, together with Proverbs, Senten∣ces of Poets, and such Grammatical stuff, nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique School-Di∣vines to no purpose at all; his Book will not exceed a competent size, nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity. Again, before he come to set down his an∣swer, or propose his Arguments, let him consider very well what may be replyed, and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself, as the Reader will perceive to have hapned often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him. But especially I expect, and Truth it self exacts at his hand, that he speak clearly and distinctly, and not seek to walk in darkness, so to delude and deceive his Reader, now saying, and then denying, and alwayes speaking with such ambiguity, as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain Art to find a shift, as his occasions might chance, either now, or hereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of several Arguments. And to the end it may appear that I deal plainly, as I would have him also do, I desire that he declare himself concerning these points.

11. First, whether our Saviour Christ have not alwayes had, and be not ever to have, a visible true Church on earth: and whether the contrary Doctrine be not a damnable heresie.

12. Secondly, what visible Church there was before Luther, disagreeing from the Roman Church, and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants.

13. Thirdly, Since he will be forced to grant, That there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as agreed with her, when Luther first ap∣peared; whether it doth not follow, that she hath not erred Fundamentally; because every such error destroyes the nature and beeing of the Church, and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visible Church on earth.

14. Fourthly, if the Roman Church did not fall into any Fundamental error, let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her Communion, or▪ to maintain errors, which are known and confessed, not to be Fundamental, or damnable.

15. Fiftly, if her Errors were not damnable, nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused from Schism, who forsook her Communion upon pretence of errors, which were not damnable.

16. Sixthly, if D. Potter have a minde to say, That her Errors are Damnable, or Fundamental, let him do us so much charity, as to tell us, in particular, what those Fundamental errors be. But he must still remember (and my self must be excused, for repeating it) that if he say, The Roman Church erred Fundamentally, he will not be able to shew, that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth, when Luther appeared: and let him tell us, How Protestants had, or can have, any Church which was uni∣versal, and extended herself to all ages, if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ; and consequently, how they can hope for Salvation, if they deny it to us.

17. Seventhly, whether any one Error maintained against any one Truth, though never so small in it self, yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God, do not destroy the Nature and Unity of Faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation.

18. Eighthly, if this be so, how can Lutherans, Calvinists, Swinglians, and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants, hope for Salvation, since it is manifest, that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by Almighty God, either Fundamental, or at least not Fundamental.

19. Ninthly, we constantly urge, and require to have a particular Catalogue of such Points as he cals Fundamental: A Catalogue, I say, in particular, and not only some general definition, or description, wherein Protestants may perhaps agree, though we see that they differ when they come to assign what Points in particular be Fundamental; and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends: as for example, in particular, Whether or no a man do not err in some Point Fundamental or necessary to Sal∣vation; and whether or no Lutherans, Calvinists, and the rest, do disagree in Fundamentals; which if they do, the same heaven cannot receive them all.

20. Tenthly and lastly, I desire that in answering to these Points, he would let us know distinctly, what is the Doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them, and what he utters only as his own private opinion.

21. These are the Questions, which, for the present, I find it fit and necessary for me to ask of D. Pot∣ter, or any other who will defend his cause, or impugne ours. And it will be in vain to speak vainly, and to tell me, that a Fool may ask more questions in an hour, than a Wise man can answer in a year; with such idle Proverbs as that. For I ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his Book, and where he declares not himself, but after so ambiguous and confused a manner, as that Truth it self can scarce tell how to convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill judging men, he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself, though Papists (as he cals them) and Puritans should presse him con∣trary wayes at the same time: and these questions concern things also of high importance, as where∣upon the knowledge of God's Church, and true Religion, and consequently, Salvation of the soul, de∣pends. And now because he shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospel, whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders, who yet would not touch them with their finger: I oblige my self to answer upon any demand of his, both to all these Que∣stions, if he find that I have not done it already, and to any other, concerning matter of Faith that he shall ask. And I will tell him very plainly, what is Catholique Doctrin, and what is not, that is, what is defined, or what is not defined, and rests but in discussion among Divines.

22. And it will be here expected, that he perform these things, as a man who professeth learning should do, not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature, to accidental or rare circumstances, of ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the like; which being very various and different, cannot be well comprehended under any general Rule. But in delivering general Doctrins, we must consider things, as they be ex natura rei, or per se loquendo (as Divines speak) that is, according to their natures, if all circumstances concurr pro∣portionable thereunto. As for example, some may for a time have invincible ignorance, even of some Fun∣damental Article of Faith, through want of capacity, instruction, or the like, and so not offend either in such ignorance or error, and yet we must absolutely say, that error in any one Fundamental point is damnable; because so it is, if we consider things in themselves, abstracting from acciden∣tal circumstances in particular persons: as contrarily, if some man judge some act of virtue, or some indifferent action to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed, by reason of his erroneous conscience; and yet we ought not to say absolutely, that virtuous or indifferent actions are sins: and in all sciences we must distinguish the general Rules from their particular Exceptions. And therefore when, for example, he answers to our Demand, Whether he hold that Catholiques may be saved, or, Whether their pretended errors be Fundamental and Damnable, he is not to change the state of the question, and have recourse to Ignorance, and the like; but to answer concerning the errors being considered what they are apt to be in themselves, and as they are neither increased nor diminished, by accidental cir∣cumstances.

23. And the like I say of all the other Points, to which I once again desire an answer without any of these or the like ambiguous terms, in some sort, in some sense, in some degree, which may be explicated afterward, as strictly or largely as may best serve his turn; but let him tell us roundly and particularly, in what sort, in what sense, in what degree he understands those, and the like obscure mincing phrases.

If he proceed solidly after this manner, and not by way of meer words, more like a Preacher to a vul∣gar Auditor, than like a learned man with a pen in his hand, thy patience shall be the less abused, and truth will also receive more right. And since we have already laid the grounds of the question, much may be said hereafter in few words, if (as I said) he keep close to the real point of every diffi∣culty without wandring into impertinent disputes, or multiplying vulgar and thred-bare objections and arguments, or labouring to prove what no man denies, or making a vain ostentation by citing a number of Schoolmen, which every Puny brought up in Schools is able to do; and if he cite his Au∣thors with such sincerity, as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions; and finally, if he set himself awork with this consideration, that we are to give a most strict account to a most just and im∣partial Judge, of every period, line, and word that passeth under our pen. For if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken, so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written, as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more ma∣lice, and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in Books concerning true Faith and Re∣ligion, without which no Soul can be saved, makes a man's Errors more material, than they would be, if the question were but of toys.

Notes

• Concerning my Reply.
• Rules to be observed, if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder.